That, anyway, is the only conclusion consistent with the “logic” she articulated Sunday morning on CBS’sFace the Nation (emphasis added):

Having said that, the weapon was a .223 MP15, the MP stands for military and police, clearly designed not for general consumption, but through practice now general consumption. Same gun that was used at Aurora. Would I do a bill? Sure I would do a bill. I mean I believe this down deep in my soul.

The notion of Feinstein‘s possession of a soul is a debate for another day. Let’s instead look at her contention that by naming the rifle model the M&P15, with M&P standing for “military and police,” Smith and Wesson is tacitly acknowledging that this firearm is appropriate only for the government’s hired muscle.

Feinstein, of course, once carried a revolver (in San Francisco, no less–not a legal option for those of us who are not among the “elite”). Was it an S&W Military & Police, or perhaps a Colt Detective Special? Maybe, maybe not–but does it matter? Even a revolver that has not been labeled with a too-deadly-for-private-citizens name is, after all, a revolver, and presumably about as “deadly” as a revolver named for its usefulness to law enforcement and the military.

This column recently noted that a California bill, passed by the legislature, but vetoed by even anti-gun Governor Jerry Brown, proves gun rights advocates’ long-held contention that the hysterical calls to ban “assault weapons” have nothing to do with so-called “military features” that we were once told distinguish “assault weapons” from “acceptable” semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein, though, has now taken the insanity to a perhaps unprecedented level. Now it’s not just ergonomic refinements and cosmetic features that render some guns “unsuitable” for private ownership. Now, the name of the gun is enough to justify a ban.

She would probably really object to this correspondent’s idea for an AR-15 platform rifle marketed as the “Regime Changer” (“Recall Ballot From the Rooftops Launcher” is an awkwardly long name for a gun). That, of course, just adds to the idea’s appeal.

Update: On second thought, let’s try to talk S&W into telling Feinstein that the “M&P” stands for “Militia and Patriots”–that should scare her as much as anything.

President Obama was one of the first to link Monday’s incident to the larger issue of gun violence and the legislative effort to curb it, though he did so without explicitly calling, as he has done repeatedly, for gun control measures.

“So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital,” Mr. Obama said as he opened an economic speech at the White House.

“Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to prevent them,” the president said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, created the investment firm, Blum Capital. Blum Capital is part owner of the construction firm, Perini-Zachary-Parsons. Dots connected so far? Perini-Zachary-Parsons has won the bid to build high speed rail track that will link Madera to Fresno, California. Once built, the Reason Foundation estimates that the railway will lose between $124 million to $373 million a year.

If you’ve never heard of Madera California and have barely heard of Fresno, you are not alone. But California’s mania in pursuing this fiscally suicidal venture is not what is spotlighted, here. As Mr. Rogers might have asked, Can you say ‘Conflict of interest’?” Or “graft”?

How did Perini-Zachary-Parsons manage to snag this prize? With the “lowest” bid, Blum’s company, miraculously, came up the victor. Their bid, $985,142,530, comes to $35 million per mile.

At the moment, no one is asking the question of how it happened. The project is state funded. And, once again, Senator Feinstein’s dynasty makes out while the state and nation she represents tunnels ever deeper into the septic tank.

Feinstein has been tied to cronyism, using taxpayer funds, several times in the past. According to Breitbart.com, in a report from June, 2012, Feinstein used her position and the information she was privy in order to:

Appropriate funds through the U.S. Senate Military Construction Subcommittee. Feinstein was serving on this committee and forced funding to companies owned by her husband. The pair netted somewhere around $5 million for their pains. Oh yes; the company prominently concerned was Perini.

Allocate TARP Funds to the FDIC. Feinstein proposed legislation to funnel $25 billion in taxpayer funds to the FDIC. The FDIC had just awarded Blum’s real estate organization (he served on the board), the CB Ellis Group, a contract to resell foreclosed properties at rates higher than industry norms. The problem with Feinstein’s redirection of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars? According to the Washington Times: “the California Democrat (Feinstein) isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; …the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments–not direct federal dollars.”

Obtain a mysterious grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2009 Feinstein and her husband invested in a “green,” renewable fuels company, Amyris. Weeks later, the DOE awarded Amyris a grant of $24 million; yes, taxpayer money. Amyris then took the stock public with an IPO that snagged the company another $85 million. Think Feinstein and Blum made their investment back?

Even if one believed in the miraculous regularity with which Feinstein/Blum’s “luck” occurs, Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, a non-profit organization dedicated to monitoring Washington ethics, says Feinstein’s explanation isn’t kosher.

Senator Feinstein excels at creating scenes of high dudgeon when she is confronted with facts she doesn’t like. And she still gets away with fiscal murder at taxpayer expense.

If California wants to bloat the sewer that was the Golden State until it explodes, that’s their problem. But if Californians continue to re-elect venal specimens like Feinstein to the Senate, term after term, the billions it costs the rest of America is our problem.

A ban on weapons like the rifle used at Newtown looks likely to fail in the Senate. Photo: AP Photo/The Connecticut Post, Christian Abraham

11:35PM GMT 14 Mar 2013

On a party line vote of 10-8, the Democratic-led panel approved a bill to renew a ban similar to one that expired in 2004. The measure would also limit high-capacity ammunition clips to 10 bullets.

Military-style assault weapons have been the weapon of choice in a number of recent US mass shootings, including one at a elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six adults on Dec. 14.

Polls show a majority of Americans back the ban.

But most Senate Republicans and a number of Democrats from rural states oppose it, arguing it would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. Many fear that backing the legislation could cost them re-election.

Mr Obama’s call to renew the ban is a centrepiece of his effort to curb US gun violence in the wake of Newtown.

The President thanked the committee for approving the bill, saying in a statement that the weapons “are designed for the battlefield and have no place on our streets, in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers.”

Assistant Senate Minority Leader John Cornyn of Texas, one of eight committee Republicans, opposed the bill, saying: “This is a flawed piece of legislation that jeopardizes the self-defense and constitutional rights of law-abiding Texans, while doing nothing to address the tragic problem of gun violence.”

The bill, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, would ban the sale, import and manufacture of 157 specific types of military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons. It would exempt 2,258 types of rifles and shotguns that are considered “legitimate hunting and sporting” firearms. The prohibition would take effect immediately if the bill becomes law.

Mrs Feinstein said the exemption should provide the American people with more than enough weapons to defend themselves.

“Do they need a bazooka?” she asked at the hearing. “I don’t think so.”

Before the full Senate votes on the bill, likely next month, senators are certain to face fierce lobbying efforts from gun-rights groups and those who favor tougher gun laws, including mayors, parents and clergy.

Mr Obama’s Democrats control the Senate, 55-45. Yet 60 votes may be needed to clear a possible Republican procedural roadblock to a vote on the measure.

“I don’t think the bill will get more than 50 votes,” Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told Reuters.

Chairman Patrick Leahy, a gun enthusiast who target shoots on his Vermont farm, joined nine fellow Democrats in voting for Feinstein’s bill. But he said he wasn’t completely comfortable it.

“I have told her I have some concerns about some aspects of it, but I feel this is a matter of such importance that it should be voted by the whole Senate, not just by this committee,” Mr Leahy said.

The assault weapons ban bill is the fourth gun measure approved by the committee in the past two weeks, all on party line or largely party line votes.

The others would expand criminal background checks on gun buyers, make it a federal crime to buy a gun on behalf of someone who is prohibited from owning one, and provide $40 million a year in federal matching funds for each of the next 10 years to improve school security.

The only one that seems likely to win approval by the Senate and be sent to the Republican-led House of Representatives for consideration is the measure to enhance school security. The one to expand background checks may also survive if Democrats can reach a compromise on it with Republicans.

“The politics of a lot of these issues are tough and members sometimes are scared about making the right decisions and they’re particularly scared because they are subject to pressure from special interest groups and well-financed organizations that may be pushing in a different direction.”

— President Obama addressing donors to his permanent campaign group on Wednesday.

Taking umbrage at Ted Cruz has become a very “in” thing to do in Washington.

The junior senator from Texas has gotten the warm reception of a skunk at a garden party since taking office at the beginning of the year.

The latest umbrage Olympiad was the Thursday hearing on a gun ban bill before it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. Cruz asked Sen. Diane Feinstein, the California Democrat and sponsor of the bill that mirrors 1994 legislation she also championed, if she thought other constitutional rights could be similarly infringed.

If the federal government could ban certain weapons, he asked, could it also ban certain books? Or could the federal government exclude certain people from Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections? His point was that the language in those other amendments was the same as the language in the second amendment.

Feinstein was flabbergasted at his lack of senatorial deference, scolding Cruz for “lecturing” her and talking about her knowledge of the deadly power of firearms. She did not answer the question but instead gave Cruz a dressing down.

Thus began a round robin of umbrage taking.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois scoffed at Cruz’s original question, observing that the government restricts pornography. (Of course, it does seem unlikely that today’s Supreme Court would uphold a federal law that identified specific publications or subjects–save those involving children).

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee chairman, jumped in next, mocking Cruz’s home state for restrictive school reading lists, saying that such prudishness was something they would never do in his home state of Vermont. That’s not the same as the government banning books, but it does reinforce blue-state self-satisfaction about social permissiveness and general loathing of Texas.

After a good round of harrumphing, the committee moved on to pass the doomed legislation. Without the support of red-state Democrats and a few Republicans the bill will not pass, but Leahy, Durbin and Feinstein could know that they had stood on principle and denounced Cruz in the process.

Cruz gets some umbrage from his own party, notably Sen. John McCain who called him a “wacko bird.” But Cruz, being Hispanic, gets extra protection from the old guard in Washington since the leaders of his party are in a desperate dash for demographic outreach. Add to the fact that Cruz is already very popular with the GOP base, and you see how Cruz gets protected status in the GOP.

But for Democrats, he is probably target number one in Congress today. Yes it’s because he refuses to act like a back bencher, but it’s also for the issues on which he’s making his stands, especially guns.

Gun control is part of the big three issues for liberals today, the others being global warming and same-sex relations. With primary season 2014 and an open 2016 nominating process just around the corner, Democrats are eager to show that they care about the big three.

Vice President Joe Biden, perhaps the most accomplished gun control advocate in his party, has been pushing hard on the issue. He published a flurry of tweets in support of the Feinstein legislation as it headed to the full Senate for a ceremonial sinking. Biden has taken up the task of seeking a gun ban with real zeal.

It would help the president to get a budget deal before turning to social issues like guns and immigration.

This is a matter of conviction for Biden, no doubt, but like other gun ban backers, it’s also good primary politics. Possible 2016 contenders Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado have all gotten behind state-level gun bans. New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a possible presidential contender of some kind, is pushing his personal fortune behind primary challenges to pro-gun Democrats.

But the president himself, now beyond the grasp of primary voters, has been more muted on the subject of late. His permanent campaign organization lists gun control as a top concern, but the president has other business to attend to right now.

Feinstein has lamented a lack of presidential leadership on the subject and other liberals are starting to wonder whether Obama will do what Bill Clinton did 20 years ago and start spending his own political capital to get the controversial measure through Congress.

Obama’s implicit promise is that he can use his own well-funded special interest group to counter the other well-funded special interest groups pushing Congress to help deliver a gun ban, but not today.

Today, Obama is trying to break out of a politically damaging cycle of budget battles. The new wisdom in Obamaland seems to be that the president needs a spending and borrowing deal that will carry the federal government through the 2014 election cycle.

That means getting Democrats to yield on entitlement programs in an effort to entice Republicans into raising taxes again. Based on the two budget blueprints put forward in Congress this week, there’s a long way to go. And while Republicans remain open to tax changes if not increases, Democrats are fully shunning the question of entitlements.

So here is Obama, at last talking to Republicans, and there are Democrats, digging in their heels on entitlements and ramping up the pressure on gun control.

The president can achieve many liberal aims on global warming by jackhammering carbon-centric industries through the EPA. He is already doing his best on gay things, including a reversal of his previous position that states could ban same-sex marriage as seen in his administration’s effort to reverse California’s ban.

But guns are big right now and ambitious Democrats, including the vice president, are not going to be silent on the subject. It would help the president to get a budget deal before turning to social issues like guns and immigration.

But if Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein and others keep shoving guns forward it will divide Democrats at a moment of much-needed unity. Obama’s promise of total victory after 2014 may not sound appealing to those on the left who have long been disappointed by Obama’s willingness to fight for their causes. If the president wants to try entitlement changes before he seeks a gun ban, those old fears will be quickly rekindled, burning up the needed capital on the left to get changes to Medicare, etc.

But if Obama were to get back in front of the gun ban movement, he won’t find as many moderate Democrats willing to stand with him on a budget deal.

Such is life of a lame duck. You’re trying to live for the moment while your party is living for the next election.

Will Kalifornians ever realize they have two damned fools as U.S.Senators?

Sadly I feel they never realize their U.S.Senators are damned fools.

How many sheeple laid down their weapons?

PP)- As an ex-Los Angeles police officer killed three people and went on a deadly shooting rampage in a vendetta to punish those he attributed for his firing, California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer pleaded for calm, and asked both law enforcement and civilians to lay down their weapons.

An intense manhunt for Christopher Dorner that aroused fear across several states and Mexico focused late Thursday on Big Bear Lake, about 80 miles east of Los Angeles, where police found a burned-out pickup truck that belonged to the ex-military and former police officer Dorner.

Throughout the day, Senators Feinstein and Boxer made desperate pleas for their California constituents to turn in their guns and not confront the crazed gunman because this would be a perfect test of their anti-gun proposals.

“The Senators feel the best course of action is to remove all weapons from law enforcement and private citizens so no one else gets hurt,” said a Senate communications intern. “When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in…. that’s just human nature.”

“I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to Los Angeles Police Department officers, on or off duty,” said Dorner in his angry manifesto published online. The rant also claimed that: “Unfortunately, I will not be alive to see my name cleared. That’s what this is about, my name. A man is nothing without his name.”

Other California lawmakers chimed in on the Senators’ anti-gun stance with Los Angeles’ Democrat Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa saying disarmament was a good idea, except for public officials. Republicans thought the idea was just crazy.

“Feinstein and Boxer want everybody to go unarmed as a madman is running a round shooting people,” said a Riverside, CA. alderman. “If that is the truth… I’m never going to San Francisco again… something must be in the water to make them that insane.”

Dorner, 33, had multiple weapons including a frivolously banned assault rifle, said Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck, who urged the suspect to surrender at an unusual press conference in an underground high security room where police were shaking in their boots.

“Of course he knows what he’s doing, we trained him. He was also a member of the Armed Forces,” he said. “It is extremely worrisome and scary.”

The Palookaville Post has learned that nearly 10,000-members of the LAPD were dispatched to protect more than 108 potential targets across the region on Thursday. The department also said that the federal government was in fact more dangerous than the lone suspect because their ideas of weapon confiscation can hurt millions of Americans over several generations.

Putting down their weapons is simply not an option for all legal gun owners. It is their Constitutional right and moral responsibility to protect their loved ones…. it should be obvious.

Dianne Feinstein, pursuant to her communist ideas, has proposed legislation to ban “assault weapons”.
The list of guns that you and I would not be allowed to own, if this legislation is passed, is lengthy.
It would immediately make many of us criminals. Though many of our legislators have publicly stated that the chances of this passing are slim, what happens if it does pass? How will the government enforce it? Will government agents start knocking on doors and confiscating our guns by force?

You may laugh at the thought of it but watch the videos of the gun grab that happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. If you don’t think it can happen in America, think again.

As if that is not enough, Senator Feinstein added more fuel to the fire. She has written exemptions into the legislation that would make it okay for those who protect – wait for it – LEGISLATORS, to carry these same outlawed weapons. If you are a member of her security team you will be allowed to own weapons she does NOT want regular Americans to own. She is to be protected, you are to be left in the cold.

Before America, before people had the land of milk and honey to escape to, there were two classes of people. The rich and the serfs. The rich owned everything, including the poor slobs who worked their land, and the serfs had no hope of climbing out of their poverty. They lived and died according to the whims of the elite. That changed in America. We created the middle class. We provided an environment where all men were equal. We eliminated serfdom. Dianne Feinstein would bring it back.

How dare this hideous woman, or any progressive, think they can pass laws that hurt those of us who are the foundation of America. How dare they place themselves above the rest of us. It has become clear to me that those who rise to position in government are convinced they are smarter than the rest of us and that we need them to nanny us for our own protection. How many of you believe you are too stupid to make your own decisions? How many of you would have the hubris to impose your will or ideals on others? How many of you will sit quietly by while these elitists strip away our rights and return us to serfdom?

I hope you’re good and angry. I know I am. I will not be a serf, subject to the whims of would be elites. If this gun grabbing legislation passes I will become a criminal in the eyes of the law. But legislators are just people too, not infallible, and not all laws are just. I am not a serf, and I will fight to my last breath to keep it that way.

Gun grabbers aren’t subtle. Flanked by uniformed police officers and a wall of black rifles, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday unleashed the most restrictive ever national “assault weapon” ban in the Senate. The California Democrat and the assembled anti-gun officials directly referenced last month’s horrific shooting of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School no fewer than 45 times. They will let no tragedy go to waste.

The proposal would ban the manufacture, sale or transfer of 158 specific makes and models of guns, along with any semiautomatic firearm (rifle, shotgun or handgun) that has a detachable magazine and one cosmetic feature such as a pistol grip or folding stock. The bill also prohibits a magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

No item falling into a banned category could be imported, and if a gun owner wanted to sell or transfer one of these, he would have to undergo a government background check. “We have done our best to craft a responsible bill to ban these ‘assault weapons’ — guns designed for military use, bought all over this country and often used for mass murder,” said Mrs. Feinstein of her ambitious proposal.

President Obama and his allies, such as Mrs. Feinstein, deliberately misuse the term “assault weapon” to confuse the public. Assault weapons are machine guns, automatic rifles that continue to fire until the trigger is released. These guns have been highly regulated since 1934 and are never used in crimes. The guns that this congressional bill targets are simply the standard semi-automatic weapons that fire one bullet with each trigger pull.

The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein’s effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.

During the marathon news conference, politicians played on emotions rather than facts. We know the new “assault weapons” ban would be useless because crime didn’t decrease during the 10 years that the 1994 ban was in effect. In the eight years Americans have been free to buy any semi-automatic rifles, gun ownership has gone up while crime has steadily declined.

According to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 90 percent of the owners of modern sporting rifles use them for target shooting, 80 percent for home defense and 60 percent for hunting.

About 44 percent of owners are former military or law enforcement, who enjoy using a familiar rifle. The typical owner is over 35 years old, married and has some college education. These good Americans are the ones who will be affected by a ban, not the criminals who will continue to use whatever they want.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should bring this measure to a floor vote soon so it can quickly be shot down.

She will make Hitler look like a piker in the gun grabbing department.

Remember gun control work for Hitler,Stalin,Fidel and Chairman Mao.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)–author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004–has said for weeks that she will soon introduce an even more restrictive bill. Leaders in the U.S. Senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that is the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, ”I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:–Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.–Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

The Department of Justice study: On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends: From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s–all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”–rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein will most likely introduce her bill on January 22nd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it. And yesterday, a story from The Blaze noted that Obama’s point man on gun control–Vice President Biden–has promised that Obama will pass a gun control bill by the end of the month.

Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must hear from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our “Write Your Representatives” tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

“I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information,” Feinstein said in a statement on her website Tuesday. “I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks.”

“I’m on record as being disturbed by these leaks, and I regret my remarks are being used to impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets,” Feinstein added. “I know for a fact the president is extremely troubled by these leaks. His administration has moved aggressively to appoint two independent U.S. attorneys. There is an investigation under way, and it is moving forward quickly.”

The Republican National Committee said that Feinstein got “Cory Bookered,” a reference to how Newark Mayor Cory Booker criticized Obama’s attacks on Romney’s work at Bain Capital as “nauseating,” than walked back his critique.

Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said at a Monday event, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where, but I think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it.”

After quoting Feinstein in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, Romney called the White House’s conduct during this leaks scandal “contemptible.”

“It betrays our national interest,” Romney said. “It compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel, with explanation and consequence. Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s Attorney General, should not be responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the Obama White House.”

After Romney’s speech, Feinstein decided to walk her comments back.

Feinstein says she trusts two politically appointed U.S. attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the president, to investigate the leaks. Ron Machen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, is an Obama appointee who has donated $4,350 to Obama’s campaigns over the years. Rod Rosenstein, Maryland’s U.S. Attorney, was a George W. Bush appointee.

A spokesman for Feinstein didn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked whether she still opposes an independent investigation into the leaks.

In a press gaggle on Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney avoided talking about specifics of the leaks scandal on the basis that there’s an “ongoing investigation, which I cannot comment on.”

“The president has made abundantly clear that he has no tolerance for leaks and he thinks leaks are damaging to our national security interests,” Carney said, saying Obama feels “extremely strongly” about this.

Senate Republicans have pushed Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate the situation.

In a recent letter to Holder, 31 Republican senators, including 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, argue that these national security leaks may be coming from high-ranking figures within the Obama White House.

“Press reports indicate that there could be many sources to the leaks within the Administration,” the senators wrote to Holder. “In fact, in Jo Becker and Scott Shane’s New York Times story, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’ the reporters state they interviewed, ‘three dozen of [Obama’s] current and former advisers.’ Tom Ricks’ recent New York Times review of David Sanger’s Confront and Conceal mentions that ‘Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White House officials, most notably to Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser. Mr. Donilon, in effect, is the hero of the book, as well as the commenter of record on events.’”

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has also wondered how Machen can be trusted to investigate anything independently after his role in the decision not to enforce the House’s resolution holding Holder in criminal contempt of Congress.

Grassley recently criticized Machen for appearing to be incapable of making such a decision for himself. Grassley also said that Americans should not trust Machen to investigate the leaks because of his failure to be independent in the Holder contempt decision.

“Your independence and integrity were cited as the reason that there was supposedly no necessity to appoint a special prosecutor,” Grassley wrote in a letter to Machen. “This matter gives you an opportunity to live up to that high praise and prove your independence. However, the way this has been handled so far suggests no such independence at all.”